Each of my arguments revolves around the idea that the British were unfair towards their treatment of the colonists, which compels me to justify the Colonists quarrel against the British. My first argument states that there were no representatives in Parliament. The Colonists refers strictly to the British who moved to the New World, in Daniel Dulany considerations it states that “a tax imposed by Parliament, is a tax with out [the Colonists’] consent” (October 1765) Therefore, no Colonist represented Parliament because all the Colonists were in the New World. However, Jenyns’ rebuttal states “Parliament may have the power to impose taxes on the Colonies [but] they have no right to use it, beause it would be an unjust tax” (1765). I do not think this qualifies as a just statement because Parliament only composed of British representatives, and no Colonist representatives, therefore, no Colonist could back up their viewpoint or dispute any taxes enforced, only the British would have say in what would be a just or unjust tax.
So which of these to sources do I believe to be more reliable? When referring to the entry written by Christopher Columbus, he begins with notes on going ashore the New World and immediately coming across an unoccupied Native home. Columbus also writes, in detail, about how the island exceeds the others in beauty and fertility. When referring to The General History, Captain John Smith begins with no writing of the New World’s surrounding area or of any immediate Native encounters. However, The General History includes much information on the terrible living conditions and bad farming/planting of the colony formed by the group of settlers that Captain John Smith was within.
First, the Irish monk Brendan is the least plausible. This is because there is no physical evidence having to do with Brendan in this article. We just learn that there is a mystery island named after him that cannot be found. If it cannot be found then it probably doesn’t exist. Also, his so-called adventures are told in a story book.
Golding does not use a leader to represent Piggy, When Golding created the book he made it so that Piggy was an outcast but he knew what was right. Golding creates three main leaders in his novel Ralph, Jack, and Piggy but they did not become leaders by birth they became leaders through the circumstances they were put through, Ralph became leader by votes but why did Ralph get voted leader? The boys ended up following Jack but why did they? Piggy did not follow anybody he made his own rules, why was Piggy a real leader all
Romeo never got the letter saying that she took the medicine. He only found out that she was dead. Friar Lawrence promises to mail a letter to Romeo. “ I’ll send a friar with speed / To Mantua, with my letters to thy lord,”( Friar Lawrence 4.1 124-125) But later we see that Romeo never got the letter. “ I could not send it, here it is again / Nor get a messenger to bring it thee,” ( Friar John 5.2 14-15) Friar Lawrence should have took the letter him self if he wanted it to be sent.
In the play 'A Streetcar Named Desire' there are many areas in the play that leads us to the utmost dramatic scene; it is a set up for the bitter conclusion that makes this the dramatic high point of the play. Tennessee Williams exploits instances of plastic theatre, language and Stanley's constant fight for dominance as the alpha male for attention all build up to Blanche ending up shattered in the end of scene 10. Since Blanche had arrived in Stanley’s home it had been a continuous battle against Blanche, who adheres to the old South's customs where wealth had a big impact and Stanley whom is from a more modern time didn’t affect them as much. It is the dramatic high point of the play because it is the point of the play where Blanche is pushed to the limit in her mental state. What’s dramatic is that Stanley doesn’t take Blanche’s mental state into consideration saying, "Let's have some rough house!"
“The Nuremberg Laws.” Neither Black Nor White: Intermarried jews and Mischling During the Third Reich. Accessed January 8, 2013. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~rar4619/blood.html. Fordham University. “The National Party’s Colour Policy, 1948.” Modern History Sourcebook. Accessed January 8, 2013, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1948apartheid1.asp.
Compare how the poet creates a powerful character in My Last Duchess and one other poem The authors of My Last Duchess and River God both create two very powerful characters, meaning both powerful in their control but also powerful as in very distinct and memorable. Although they have many similarities, there are also differences in techniques and the desired effects of the character’s personalities. Firstly, both the characters are powerful and have a lot of control, and use this cruelly. In My Last Duchess, after explaining that his late wife was constantly smiling flirtatiously with other men, he says ‘I gave commands; then all smiles stopped together.’ The word ‘command’ is an imperative verb and it also doesn’t carry much emotion. It implies that he feels it was a necessary decision to have her killed, and he shows no remorse for it.
A once high, mighty, and pure ideal has become degraded and buried by the merciless greed for money. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s book, The Great Gatsby, many of the characters, believed in the Dream and that wealth and social mobility was within his or her reach. Fitzgerald illustrates three specific social classes: old money, new money, and the lower class, with old money and new money taking center stage. Gatsby, himself, represents new money: he climbed the social and economic ladder and succeeded by way of shady dealings of bootlegging. On the other hand, Daisy Buchanan, the love of Gatsby’s life, represents old money.
Money and wealth could be one or the biggest powers. It had the ability to dictate anything, either negative or positive. Through the use of metaphor and irony, F. Scott Fitzgerald in "The Great Gatsby" expose how love and money create conflicts and lost hope. Gatsby had a very high social class and reputation and spoiled Daisy to death, but she still chose to stay with Tom. "... Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things... And then retreated back into their money..." They both had their